During a speech at Decker Auditorium in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump said he would go after ISIS-controlled oil fields and "bomb the s--- out of 'em," to
loud applause. "ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, certain areas of oil that they took away," Trump
said. He continued: "They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the s--- out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow
up the pipes. ... I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there and in two months,
you ever see these guys, how good they are, the great oil companies? They’ll rebuild that sucker, brand new — it'll be beautiful."

I'm appalled at what he just did and will be joining the protesters now, but I still think we made the best choice we could have... given the choices.

What was so appalling about destroying an airbase that launched a deadly chemical attack on innocent men, women, and children? I can understand
disagreeing with the action, but to be so appalled that you will go out and protest? I just don't get it.

Because many of us dont think it was Assad! It make no sense for him to use chemical weapons! He has more to lose than gain.

Terrorists in the region have chemical weapons too and they have much more to gain.

For far Trump has not released any information or eveidence on why it was Assad over the terrorists.

Didn't Assad condemn the attack and state it was not them?

I think proof and rigorous investigation are needed. And now all of a sudden MSM and Trump are in agreeance on something?

And doesnt # like this happen in countries around the world regularly? So why police and bomb Syria and mount against Assad?

Show us the god damn evidence and we will go from there. This all reeks.

I don't know what the best approach is, but putting into motion plans that will see him get impeached soon seems like the best scenario for the
USA itself and the rest of the world.

And then what? Or should I say "who?" Pence. I don't think he'll be any better. So we impeach him too. And then who? It won't be anyone
elected by the people -- that's about all we know for sure. Whoever Pence would pick as VP... and we don't know who that would be. So what practical
and productive purpose would be served?

ETA: And all of the above is assuming that Trump is not only impeached but also removed from office...

I read this entire thread to see if anyone bothered to correct you.

If Trump gets impeached, Pence "doesn't select a VP.... that goes to Paul Ryan....it follows the line of succession:

As we speak Russian Stealth submarines will cruising around America like sharks waiting for the go order. Do you see the patriot missiles around
Dallas?. They have plenty in Moscow. If this madness escalates you next car you will own will be a horse and buggy, if your lucky.

If Trump gets impeached, Pence "doesn't select a VP.... that goes to Paul Ryan....it follows the line of succession:

en.wikipedia.org...

That may have been true at one time, but it changed with the 25th Amendment, so now the line of succession only applies in the case of both the
sitting president and vice president being incapacitated/killed simultaneously. In the case of impeachment and removal from office, the sitting vice
president would become president, and choose his vice president. From your link:

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, clarified Article II, Section 1: that the Vice President is the direct successor of the President. He or she
becomes President if the President dies, resigns or is removed from office. The amendment also provides for the situation where the President is
temporarily disabled, such as if the President has a surgical procedure or becomes mentally unstable.

The amendment also provides for Vice Presidential succession, by requiring Vice Presidential vacancies to be filled by the President and confirmed
by both houses of the Congress. Previously, whenever a Vice President had succeeded to the Presidency or had otherwise left the office empty
(through death, resignation, or removal from office), the Vice Presidency remained vacant until the next Presidential and Vice Presidential terms
began.

This is how the former Governor Nelson Rockefeller became vice president for President Gerald Ford after Nixon resigned:

After unsuccessfully seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 1960, 1964, and 1968, he served as Vice President under President Gerald R.
Ford. Ford had been the first vice president to be appointed under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, and ascended to the presidency following the
August 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon over the Watergate Scandal, selecting Rockefeller as his replacement.

I doubt the majority who voted for Hillary, did so because she was a woman.

She was and still is the most qualified person to have run in that particular election.

Trump was and still is an entertainer. He is not and was not qualified for the position of president. As far as him being a great business man - -
the bankruptcy banks got together to save themselves - - branded the name Trump and sold the brand - - and the man with the name.

This amateur is now in charge of Global/Nuclear decisions. Good job "America First" people.

those were against Isis, an independent non-governmental group, and not against an actual government-owned airbase. Thats a pretty important
distinction to make. You're either too dense to understand the difference, or are being disingenuous.

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Russia is not going to get involved in a direct military conflict with the United States, simply because the U.S. sent a strong message to Syria that
it is no longer going to sit idly by and watch its Dictator use Sarin Gas weapons against sleeping civilians.

Why?

Because Syria is not important enough to Putin, to risk his own life and the destruction of his Country.

What it will do is alter Putin's calculus as it relates to other geopolitical moves he has in mind (in the Middle East, Iran, Ukraine and
elsewhere)...because he now knows he cannot take what he wants with total impunity. He now knows that this U.S. Administration will act.

I am sure that this incident had a similar effect in the discussions that Trump had with Xi over the last few days. The Chinese understand that they
need to reign in the North Koreans - because otherwise Trump will (and no, the Chinese will not risk annihilation over Little Kimmy either).

So...take a deep breath. It's not time to panic.

What if Russia responded by nuking Hawaii, Using your own logic, US wouldn't respond because Hawaii is not worth the total annihilation of the US,
much less the world.

People need reminding that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world with over 7000 weapons. It can totally destroy the US in 30 mintues.
Russia also has a massive bunker complex that can house over 40 million so mutual destruction is not guaranteed.

Obama did not attack Russian forces directly but used proxies. Trump has directly attacked Russiam forces in Syria forcing Putin in a corner in which
he needs save face with his people.

I don't know why anyone is surprised by the developments this week. Trump has always shown that he is a defender, as well as a fighter. The MSM does
not cover it, and Trump does not make a big deal about it. Trump does not like injustice, and he has been known to help those in need. I have posted
much evidence of this here during the election. He has said that he wanted to be president to make a difference and fix what is wrong.

So, if you really analyze him, how is it a surprise that he would take decisive action to right a wrong? He had the ability to "fix" something, and
that is not something that Trump would let slide, especially when no one else was doing anything about it. It reminds me of the story of him watching
out of his window in NY City for months, as they struggled slowly to build an ice rink. He got tired of the incompetence, and offered to take over,
finishing the project quickly and efficiently. When he sees something that is not getting done, he gets it done.

Also, Trump always said that the rest of the world does not respect the US, because our past president was weak. One of his goals was to correct this.
He will put the US first, but not at the expense of continuing with the rest of the world seeing us as weak.

I think that his action this week was a good move. He worked closely with the heads of military and intelligence to analyze all options, and then did
something. He sent a message that the US is not going to stand by when the defenseless are being slaughtered.

btw - they had satellite images of the chemical attack, which showed the planes coming from that hangar and dropping the bomb that exploded in a
chemical cloud. So the fake claims that this was not Assad are just nonsense.

I think a lot of what has been stated in this thread is quite irrelevant. Trump ordered the cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase, and we can
all speculate as to the actual reason he sanctioned it. Obviously, he was advised and shown evidence he took to be real and genuine. I doubt very much
he would sanction such an attack on hearsay alone?

We are all nothing more than on-lookers, bystanders watching a perilous drama unfold to a potential catastrophic ending, or just a continuation of the
never-ending game of distractions, subterfuge and diversions. The attack on the airbase (even if it was a 'false flag') had an effect. It temporarily
halted the continued gains Assad's and Russian forces were making, with the unfortunate side-effect of raising tensions, which the MSM are gleefully
reporting on. They really do like to spread bad news about, make you feel imperilled and that your world could end at a moment's notice. Surely, you
feel safe under the umbrella of your mighty military industrial complex?

Remember the 'Bay of Pigs' disaster? It was the reason why Russia placed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, so as to deter American aggression against
Castro. Can you imagine Trump's and not Kennedy's administration being in charge of that affair? I doubt that we would have reached 1964 if he was,
because if there's one thing that Trump lacks it is experienced old school statesmanship. Like Kim Jong-Un, Trump is a megalomaniac, only milder than
the North Korean idiot, but still a person of narcissistic tendencies, and that makes him dangerous. He pleases to be praised, and does so with little
thought to consequence.

In sanctioning the attack on the airbase, Trump has both offended and lost one of the few leaders in the world he needs on his side diplomatically. He
has shown Putin that he can turn against anyone on a mood swing, you just have to feed him the right information and he will sanction a response to
occur quite rapidly. Putin will no longer trust him, that's if they actually get talking again, as Putin has switched off the 'hot line' to the White
House. Putin will no longer be as conciliatory to either American diplomats or the American people. Trump wanted to build a wall, and he has done so,
out of Putin...and that is a disaster. So buffoonish was Trump's sanctioning, so rapidly eager to placate his critics that he has imperilled the
world. Not only has he potentially started a 'new' cold war, but he has decidedly brought a Siberian winter upon America.

Obviously, there are people of military and industrial influence who want continued war for nothing more than money and profit, and to keep their own
snouts buried deep in the trough of their own self-privilege, no matter what the cost to anyone or the world. Such psychopathic people do not care a
jot about anyone but themselves, they are incapable of caring because they have no empathy for anything other than their own agendas.

We all know that it doesn't make sense for Assad to use a chemical weapon, but from Trump's quick response, it does make sense for the false flag to
be repeated, or to use false flags to get Trump to act in the way you want him to. He doesn't have an ounce of diplomatic statesmanship caution in his
body. He's just reactive to information without allowing for the facts to be fully gathered and presented to the world. One wonders, would he still
have made the sanction if it was proven that Russian forces carried out the chemical attack? Do you think Putin would remain an ally of Assad if he
thought or believed Assad sanctioned the chemical usage? It would bring their relationship into disrepute. Would Assad really test that relationship
in such a way?

I think the chemical attack was a false flag, and that it was used to gain certain political and military results:

1) to break the relationship between Trump and Putin.
2) to bring Putin's continued alliance with Assad into question, and to try to drive a wedge between them.
3) to slow down the gains that Assad's forces and Russian forces were making against the so-called rebels, and to allow the rebels to re-group with
different strategies.

Regardless of the reason for the cruise missile sanction on the Syrian air base, Trump effectively committed an 'act of war', and under international
law, an illegal one. America was not placed under threat by the chemical attack, and Trump did not seek prior international approval, thus setting
himself up for impeachment when his enemies choose to use it against him and seek his removal. Who benefits from the chemical attack? It isn't Assad.
It isn't Putin. It isn't Trump by his response. it is all those insidious bastards hidden in their positions of power driving their silent agenda.

I'm appalled at what he just did and will be joining the protesters now, but I still think we made the best choice we could have... given the choices.

What was so appalling about destroying an airbase that launched a deadly chemical attack on innocent men, women, and children? I can understand
disagreeing with the action, but to be so appalled that you will go out and protest? I just don't get it.

Because many of us dont think it was Assad!

Well I trust Rand Paul, and he believes it was Assad who did it. He didn't agree with the response by Trump, but he doesn't refute that it was Assad
who committed the act.

This is not a Left vs. Right issue any longer. I appreciate and respect your opinion, but referencing Obama's failures will not help the problem that
we face right now. Remember how you were trying to avoid World War 3 by voting against Hilary? Guess what, Trump is leading you to the same
destination.

Ok then but in all the real it looks more like Obama and Trump both are following game plane with variations ect, ect.

I have said it on ATS before that ISIS looks like an arm of the Iran/Syrian partnership and you will her folks from that part of the world say the
same. The freedom fighters in Syria are not radical muzz nutcases.

Anyway.......Ass mans kingdom should be reduced to his little holding area and the rest of the nation chopped up into independent regions several
large including a northern sector for the Kurds ect, ect and be done with it

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.